MR. TAYLOR' S SECOND REPLY. 141 



Xo Gentile Sabbath; and no Sabbath imposed by the Jerusalem Council. 



gressed by those just emancipated from the Roman Paganism," — 

 " not perceiving that it ruins my argument/' (/>. 73.) I con- 

 fess that this is strictly true. So far from it, I perceive that 

 the ''admission" is the very hulioark of my argument. It 

 was precisely because these "two points'' were not enjoined by 

 the Pagan moral h\w that their special enactment was neces- 

 sary. Though not probably individually controverted before 

 the Jerusalem Council, they were as really an integral ^^ part 

 of the law in dispute" (that is, as really " distinctive of 

 Judaism" for the persons addressed) as circumcision itself I* 

 My friend, as a classical scholar, must be fully aware of this. 



What then is the relation of the fourth commandment to the 

 Gentile Christian ? The perspicuous answer is contained in 

 two irrefutable propositions : Ist. The " Sabbath" most cer- 

 tainly was not obligatory by any Gentile law (my friend' s 

 " mistake in fact," notwithstanding), and 2dly, the " Sabbath" 

 as certainly was not made obligatory by the Jerusalem edict. 

 The Roman converts, after learniug that but three things of 

 "the law of Moses" had been enjoined upon them as ''neces- 

 sary things," would at once have rejected as an absurdity any 

 imposition of the Mosaic Sabbath upon their consciences. As 

 well might the obligation of Circumcision have been asserted. 



A PersiuSj a Martial, or a Seneca would have asked in 

 astonishment : " Ho w could the Council possibly omit an 

 observance that we regard so peculiarly ^ distinctive of Juda- 

 ism/ and that was therefore one of the most prominent of 

 those in controversy, if it was intended still to be a 'necessary 

 thing ?' '' My friend would find it difficult to give a satis- 

 factory reply. He has not y et "done with the Fifth Proposi- 



■^ Grotius (Comment. in Act. xv. 20), CrRCELLÆUS (Diatrib. siipr. 

 laud. c. 10), and Salmasius (Be trapezit. fænor.), all agree that the 

 reason why these three restrictions and no others, were imposed by 

 the apostles, was that they were the only ones judged necessary for 

 observance, which admitted of dispute between the Jews and the 

 Gentiles, from the diversity of their systems. 



